FLIGHT, II May 1951 575
CORRESPONDENCE
The Editor of "Flight" does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents in these columns.
The names and addresses of the writers, not necessarily for publication, must in all cases accompany letters.
German Aviation Redivivus ?Y
OUR piece on German aviation (page 448, issue of April 20th)was more than interesting to me. Your point that, if per-
mission is given to Germany to return to the field of internationalair traffic, we may see a revival of the Lufthansa, needs adding to,
in my view. The creation of Lufthansa in the early nineteentwenties was in fact the re-creation of the Luftwaffe after the
Versailles Treaty. The Focke-Wulf 200, the Heinkel 111, theJunkers 52, etc., were all military bombers first operated by Luft-
hansa. Since the beginning of 1950 we have learned at first handthat the Germans in the Soviet Zone have a civil aviation agree-
ment with the Russians, that Messerschmitt has production facili-ties in Pakistan and is about to acquire them in South Africa
(where Henschel has had a factory for about a year now) and thatKurt Tank, the Focke-Wulf designer, is making aircraft for Peron
at Cordoba in the Argentine.
My point is that your German aviation item is part of a biggerpicture of the revival of the Luftwaffe which is not without interest
to those of us who recall the way Germany evaded the restrictionsof the Treaty of Versailles, inter alia, by making civil aircraft in
Sweden, Turkey and Russia and by using Lufthansa with con-summate skill to lay the foundations of Goering's Air Force.
London, W.9. ASHER LEE.
From a German Reader
I AM German, and derive great inspiration from Flight. As aglider pilot, I am very interested in reading the column "Club
and Gliding News."
It is very hard for us to realize that gliding enthusiasts in othercountries are enjoying themselves flying while we are still standing
in the background. We have not forgotten that we have lost aterrible war, but for that reason specially we should, I think, try
to make connections for friendship with the other peace-lovingcountries. Other kinds of sports have already been carried out
internationally, so why don't we get permission to start buildingaircraft for gliding and soaring again ?
A gliding and soaring association, the German Aero Club, wasformed here in 1950, but all we do at present is to build models.
I am employed as interpreter-clerk with a British unit, andwould like to hear what your readers think about the future of
German gliding and soaring.
Krefeld, Germany. SIEGFRIED KERSTEN.
The Corporations and Charter Work
From Sir Archibald P. Hope, Bt., O.B.E., D.F.C., B.A., A.C.A.
f")N April 20th you published a letter from Mr. Stuart-Shaw^-' which examines the vexed question of the Corporations'
non-scheduled activities. Whilst this letter sets out one side ofthe question clearly, it ignores the other side completely.
The case presented by the non-scheduled operators is basedon the claim that the Corporations are using their subsidy, paid
with taxpayers' money, to assist their quotations for non-scheduledservices. It has been argued by the protagonists of nationalization
that, because the Corporations' non-scheduled activities reducethe subsidy, the subsidy is not being us,ed. This, of course, is
illogical nonsense.
If this argument is carried to its ultimate conclusion, it wouldmean that the Corporations could undertake non-scheduled or
charter work at prices which covered their basic operating costs(as suggested by Mr. Stuart-Shaw), plus one penny contribution
to their overheads, thus reducing their subsidy by that amount.The private enterprise operators, however efficient they may be,
obviously cannot reduce their overheads beyond the true amount,and it follows inevitably that, if the Corporations are allowed to
persist in their present policy, the non-scheduled operators mustbe forced out of business.
The non-scheduled operators, therefore, contend that theCorporations' present policy is contrary to public policy for at
least three reasons. First, the non-scheduled operators acquiredtheir aircraft and built up their business on the strength _ of
numerous Ministerial pronouncements, both inside and outsideParliament, that the Corporations would not be allowed to use
public money to compete against them. These protestations arenow lightly thrust aside, on the grounds that it is necessary to
protect the taxpayer's pocket. This argument was just as validwhen the promises were made, and surely the non-scheduled
operators are entitled to point out the breach of good faith by aGovernment whose promises encouraged them to invest large sums
of money. Secondly, if the Corporations persist in their present
policy, for the reasons outlined above, the non-scheduled operators
must be forced out of business. From the point of view of national
defence, it is at least also arguable that this would be unfortunate.
Thirdly, a better way to reduce the taxpayers' loss—and no one
denies the desirability of doing so—would be for the Corporations
to get rid of their surplus aircraft and surplus staff, rather than
operate non-scheduled services with them at prices which are
economically indefensible. The Corporations will doubtless deny
that they have surplus aircraft, but examination of their published
figures for the past five years shows that their utilization is far
below that of many other international operators, and even of some
British non-scheduled operators. Only when they actually achieve
really high utilization can they justifiably claim that they have no
surplus aircraft and are merely using spare capacity for non-
scheduled services.
London, W.i. A. P. HOPE,
Manager, Commercial Dept., Airwork, Ltd.
Board of Old Warriors
THE writer of your report of the R.F.C.-R.N.A.S. reunionwonders whether, had Maurice Wright been able to attend
the recent R.F.C.-R.N.A.S. reunion, Fairey's would not have had"a First World War Service trio which, perhaps, no other aircraft
firm could equal."
Well, four of the five executives named on our letter headingwere all in the R.F.C. Moreover, George Cornwall, chief designer,
was an observation-balloon officer in the R.F.C.; so five of ourtop executives were entitled to attend this reunion, a fact of
which we are extremely proud.
Hounslow, Middx. G. A. LINGHAM,
Heston Aircraft Co., Ltd.
[The four are Sir Norman J. Watson (chairman), B. R. S. Jones
and G. A. Lingham, D.F.C. (joint managing directors), and
G/C. G. H. Bowman, D.S.O., M.C., D.F.C.—Ed.]
The Olympia Sailplane
WITH reference to the statement reproduced in your issue ofApril 6th, "A Sailplane's Nationality," we feel that for
accuracy's sake and in fairness to my late partner, the Hon.Andrew Dalrymple, and members of our staff, it should be
mentioned that most of the modifications referred to wereoriginally carried out by us.
We obtained a set of German drawings in 1944 and spent agreat deal of time and trouble (and, I regret to say, money) in
translating these into English materials and dimensions.
We supplied the prototype machine to Mr. Dudley Hiscox,but when it became apparent that we were not in a position to
fulfil all the orders received in a reasonable space of time, wedisposed of the project to the present makers, to whom the wings
had been originally sub-contracted.
As a matter of interest, Mr. Hardinge of Australia constructedhis Yellow Witch from a set of our drawings, assisted by some
fittings and a certain amount of correspondence.
Hungerford, Berks. CHILTON AIRCRAFT CO., LTD.
A. R. Ward, Managing Director.
Facing the Tail
•yOU commendably deal editorially with the thorny question ofA backward-facing seats in your April 27th issue. May I
contribute a passenger's viewpoint on some of the points youraise?
Firstly, as a passenger, I am surprised that I.A.T.A. believesit possible to take an abstract viewpoint of air safety—you report
them as acknowledging the merit of backward-facing seats in thisrespect, but not favouring any immediate move towards stan-
dardization. (I personally would feel most insecure in an aircraftif I thought that either designers or operators approached the
general problem of air safety as indifferently as they appear toregard this particular one.)
It seems to me that a considerable number of red herrings aredrawn across the trail when arguments are advanced against the
adoption of backward-facing seats. The cardinal point that ifeven the existing types of seats were merely turned round to face
the other way, air safety would be greatly improved (by givingpassengers a much greater chance of survival and escape from
injury in a crash), is side-tracked by critics stressing instead the